Hypotheses, rationale, design, and methods for prognostic evaluation of a randomized comparison between patients with coronary artery disease associated with ischemic cardiomyopathy who undergo medical or surgical treatment: MASS-VI (HF)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ischemic cardiomyopathy and severe left ventricular dysfunction are well established to represent the main determinants of poor survival and premature death compared with preserved ventricular function. However, the role of myocardial revascularization as a therapeutic alternative is not known to improve the long-term prognosis in this group of patients. This study will investigate whether myocardial revascularization contributes to a better prognosis for patients compared with those treated with drugs alone and followed over the long term. METHODS: The study will include 600 patients with coronary artery disease associated with ischemic cardiomyopathy. The surgical or drug therapy option will be randomized, and the events considered for analysis will be all-cause mortality, nonfatal infarction, unstable angina requiring additional revascularization, and stroke. The events will be analyzed according to the intent-to-treat principle. Patients with multivessel coronary disease and left ventricular ejection fraction measurements of less than 35% will be included. In addition, myocardial ischemia will be documented by myocardial scintigraphy. Markers of myocardial necrosis will be checked at admission and after the procedure. DISCUSSION: The role of myocardial revascularization (CABG) in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure is not clearly established. The surgical option of revascularizing the myocardium is a procedure designed to reduce the load of myocardial hibernation in patients with heart failure caused by coronary artery disease. On the other hand, the assessment of myocardial viability is frequently used to identify patients with left ventricular ischemic dysfunction in which CABG may add survival benefit. However, the effectiveness of this option is uncertain. The great difficulty in establishing the efficacy of surgical intervention is based on the understanding of viability without ischemia. Thus, this study will include only patients with viable and truly ischemic myocardium to correct this anomaly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Evaluation of a randomized comparison between patients with coronary artery disease associated with ischemic cardiomyopathy submitted to medical or surgical treatment: MASS-VI (HF), ISRCTN77449548, Oct 10th, 2019 (retrospectively registered).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".